SUZUKI Shinsuke wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:58:32 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED](Peter Lei) said:
While the SCTP API hasn't gone through last call, it's fairly
stable and we have both "converted" many applications from TCP
to SCTP using the sockets API, as well as had portability between
the KAME SCTP stack and the linux stack for some test applications
used at the last interop event (except for the standard sockets
issues that one runs into even for TCP like no sin_length field
in the sockaddr struct).
I'm not aware of any KAME SNAP compilation failures w/and w/o SCTP.
The major changes to our SCTP code when it gets committed into KAME
has been that of code format/style.
What I found was the following two issues. Although these two are
technically quite trivial, what I was fearing was a lack of report to
KAME, since this may mean a lack of KAME-SCTP users.
- inconsistency between KAME specific kernel code and SCTP leads
to an kernel compilation error.
Of course, it's a technically trivial bug and our own bug.
- including SCTP in getaddrinfo() causes 'configure' script error
in many ports applications.
This is also a trivial problem, and maybe specific to KAME SCTP.
And some of such ports are already fixed when I encounter this
problem.
(e.g. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/lang/python/files/patch-configure.diff?r1=1.7&r2=1.8)
But now I understand that lack of report does not mean a lack of
testing users (since SCTP-lovers seems communicating directly to your
team). So I can be much more optimistic now, and don't object to
merging it into -current, since such trivial bugs can be fixed easily
in -current. (I myself haven't tested SCTP very well, so I cannot
comment on its stability itself. But at least, SCTP does not seem to
affect the behavior of other protocols)
Thanks and sorry if you feel my previous comments were insulting...
----
Suzuki-san:
None of us on the SCTP team took your comments as insults ... we
all want software with no bugs.. but it is perfectly understandable
that if you don't get any bug reports you would feel
no one is using it...
As to compilation errors... it is difficult for
me since when I prepare a patch of course I compile it
but often times it takes many weeks for one of the KAME
team to find the time to apply it.. this then causes a
possiblity that some other changes made by KAME will
make it uncompilable... or for that matter a change that
KAME makes can cause SCTP not to compile and I would not
have a chance to see such an issue... I am sorry I
cannot help more :-0
Today I will finish running down a couple of "extra-shutdown's"
and a case where no HB happens... (these are my reported
bugs that are left.. nothing serious ... just a couple of
strange behaviors)... Once I am done with that I can do my
performance testing and then on to loading 6.0 :-D
R
--
Randall Stewart
803-345-0369 <or> 815-342-5222(cell)
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
